I have no idea why they say it's "24 minutes" when it actually gives you 30 minutes. And yes, while there are unskippable cutscenes there is actually a reasonable amount of gameplay.

The whole experience works quite well, though I have no interest paying £35.99, which is what they were asking for. The game is pretty decent for a casual game and performance is great but the thing that REALLY annoys me is the prerendered cutscenes. There is no excuse to prerender in-game graphics, especially when done at a fraction of the quality of the engine itself (it's 1080p and either 24fps or 30fps). It's extremely jarring to go from excellent, fluid 60fps graphics at 1600p to compressed, jerky 1080p video.

Ryse is a game that will be worth picking up on sale and the demo has helped me determine that. It isn't worth paying full price for.

InBlack wrote on Nov 17, 2014, 10:00:Talk about the assbackwardness galore! I for one expect a great single player experience from Star Citizen (Squadron42) while I suspect that Elite: Dangerous will blow away anything that CR and crew think up out of the water with regards to multiplayer. (Since it was always meant to be a player driven game, both in solo and multiplayer)

SC will have better singleplayer and multiplayer, as it is a game of an entirely different calibre. SQ42 is a full, singleplayer campaign but the bulk of SC is based around the persistent universe.

E:D looks like a nice enough game but nothing I've seen suggests it's anywhere close to SC in any respect (gameplay, graphics, userbase, depth, etc), nor would I expect it to given it was developed at a fraction of the budget.

SpectralMeat wrote on Nov 17, 2014, 08:31:I don't think that is the problem. The problem is they are changing fundamental parts of the game that was promised in the kickstarter stage. To put it simply, what they are delivering isn't the game I've backed at the beginning. If they've come forward with this news earlier I am pretty sure this wouldn't have been as big of a deal as it is now.It's like you are funding a single player game that the devs turn into an mmo weeks before it's release.

Nowhere can I find any reference to offline player on the Kickstarter page. All I can find is a reference to being able to play without connecting to the galaxy server but that's different to supporting offline play. The change seems to be that connecting to the galaxy server is now required, which is certainly a change from the original pledge but very different to offline play being removed. Either way, I don't think the KS terms allow for refunds for changes in the course of development.

That said, it doesn't seem like a sensible decision given the inevitable backlash. Regardless of whether or not offline play was ever promised, people thought it was going to be possible and apparently nothing throughout development suggested otherwise.

Do I consider it a big deal? No, but then I'm not backing the game and am happy with SC, a competing title which is based heavily around online play.

Paketep wrote on Nov 15, 2014, 17:53:A fairly decent rep?. Since they rolled out the POS that is Uplay, I haven't bought any game from them, except for the Trackmanis 2 series (which doesn't use Uplay).

Uplay is at best a minor inconvenience. At least Ubisoft games are still for sale on Steam (for the moment). Also, they're generally decent.

Slick wrote on Nov 15, 2014, 11:02:just because there are some bad apples out there, doesn't mean that journalism as a profession is morally bankrupt. only super edgy youtube personalities are to be trusted? Man-of-a-million edges TotalBiscuit is trying to follow in the footsteps of real heavyweights like Ben "Yahtzee" Crowshaw, except he's doing it with the grace of a drunken neanderthal.

Most of the gaming press can't be trusted, whereas TotalBiscuit is very honest with his reviews. You're just annoyed because your Ubisoft shares aren't worth as much since all the negative press came out surrounding Assassin's Creed: Unity.

For what it's worth, performance is great on my system at 1600p with ultra settings. Better than I expected, given all the fuss. I haven't played around with anti-aliasing yet. Maybe there's been a day-one patch that improves performance.

That said, the graphics aren't anything radical. They're obviously very good but on par with games like Crysis 3 and Far Cry 3. That is, there isn't any reason why it should run so poorly.

Slick wrote on Nov 13, 2014, 04:23:people bitch and moan that all games look the same, and do the same things. when one IP tries to push things forward, instead of throwing them a parade we lynch them because it's too much.

Nonsense. Gamers respect developers who push the boundaries, they just don't have any patience for poorly optimised messes like this. TotalBiscuit has a GTX 980 SLI setup and was struggling to maintain 60fps at 1080p. There is literally no point making a game that nobody can run. It's even worse on console, where the framerate drops below 20fps.

Slick wrote on Nov 13, 2014, 04:23:this release reminds me of Crysis, a line in the sand has been drawn, where ubi is saying "even at minimum specs it has to look at least this good, has to be at least this many characters onscreen at once." FUCKING FINALLY. first game i've ever seen that can really even TRY to render a whole crowd, all other games just give up and make excuses why real crowds aren't "in this world".

Crysis was a terrible game. Graphically it was impressive but nobody could run it and the gameplay was really weak. It took several years before systems could even come close to running it properly. Crysis 2, on the otherhand, had better graphics that were less demanding and better gameplay.

I respect developers who push the graphical boundaries yet make a well optimised game that has great gameplay. Ubisoft did that with Far Cry 3 and by all accounts it looks like Far Cry 4 will be even better. Ubisoft failed with Assassin's Creed: Unity. I don't see how you can defend a badly made game.

Slick wrote on Nov 13, 2014, 04:27:i vote my 2 cents that we never see another bullshit thread like this again on this site. it's not news. it's marketing.

Actually, it's both. Every time there is a milestone reached new features are announced, with choices given to the community. For instance, last time people voted for a third starter ship and this time they get to vote on the design (it's almost certain that the two-seater Xi'An-based MISC ship will win).

Judging by the number of people who comment on every topic related to Star Citizen it clearly IS news.

I'm hoping my GTX 970 SLI setup will do the job, as if not I don't see who they're expecting will be able to run the game. The only question mark with my setup is that I game at 1600p, which is pretty demanding.

Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 8, 2014, 15:39:Have we even seen nearly enough to know whether it is innovative or not? Really, how innovative was TF2? It was just a well-polished and pretty well-balanced team shooter with a fun art style.

The graphical style was unprecedented at the time. I can still remember how impressed I was with the visuals when I first played it. In contrast this looks dated, with poor animations, low texture detail and low poly models. It is utterly derivative.

For Blizzard's first new IP in decades it's extremely underwhelming. More effort was put into the cinematic trailer than the game itself.

NKD wrote on Nov 8, 2014, 13:25:Hmm thats interesting. But if Uplay isn't undercutting Steam, why would Steam be bothered by it? Like I could understand them being opposed to uPlay being cheaper, but the same or more expensive? I don't see how that hurts Valve. If anything it makes them look better in comparison. This is all so confusing.

Valve is trying to enforce consistent international pricing, which publishers are actively trying to undermine. It looks bad for Valve if titles in a particular region are so much more expensive.

This sounds like a Ubisoft ploy to get people to buy the game on Uplay, after which they'll release it on Steam - that's what they did in the UK with FC2 and FC3. Given that none of the games are available in the UK it seems like an issue involving regionality and I suspect it relates to pricing.

I'm more inclined to side with Valve than Ubisoft, though without knowing the full details it's hard to know what to think.

NKD wrote on Nov 8, 2014, 12:15:Uh, aren't the prices for these games same on Uplay and Origin as they would be for Steam? I can't see the UK prices..

I don't know about Uplay but I know with EA they charged a lot more on Origin than Steam, despite taking a bigger cut.

Ubisoft is charging £65 / $103 (discounted from £70 / $111) for Far Cry 4 Gold, which is utterly ridiculous. Even the regular version is £50 / $80, which most new games are available from £22-30 / $35-48. For instance, I paid £24 / $38 to pre-order Civilization: Beyond Earth and £22.50 / $36 to pre-order Tomb Raider (both Steam copies). Even on Steam most AAA games are £30, with even overpriced shit like Call Of Duty 'only' costing £40.

Ubisoft has lost the plot. If I hadn't got FC4 and AC:U for free I wouldn't have bought them, despite being really interested in both. Ubisoft is starting to become like EA.

JeffD wrote on Nov 8, 2014, 03:30:As for "just another multiplayer team shooter".. are you fn kidding me.. did YOU even watch the gameplay trailer? You have 12...TWELVE Classes so far, each has there own skills and play style. Not all of them are twitch based front line assaults. And there will be MORE coming. The diversity of group combinations is going to be huge. Bigger then anything currently out there in the FPS market. And balance is paramount so if there is anyone who can do this right, it is either blizzard or ncsoft, so I am glad to see one of those doing it. :)

It's TF2.5 with Pixar style cinematics. It's not even close to as innovative as TF2 was for its time.

I'll wait to see how the game turns out but I really can't get excited about it.

Exactly. Uplay has a fraction of the non-Ubisoft games that Valve does. The only way Ubisoft can hope to compete is if it offers a better service, which simply isn't the case at the moment (and is frankly unlikely).

I don't have a problem with Uplay or Origin but I have no intention on buying games on either platform. Virtually all my games are on Steam and I like it that way because of the community features. I would rather buy a Uplay or Origin game on Steam and have it launch another client than buy directly through the respective stores.

At the end of the day this is all about greed. Valve provides a better service and that's why people use it. Both EA and Ubisoft are denying users the opportunity to buy games on Steam and that is an anti-consumer practice.